|
The line of reasoning that says "a businessman will keep more of general disaster related items on hand if he's allowed to gouge on pricing during disasters" seems rather specious to me. If the "risk" of having a lot of inventory on hand is supposed to be balanced out by the "rewards" of being able to jack the prices in a loving disaster, with no ceiling to what you can charge in a temporarily perverse situation why wouldn't the business owner just jack his prices up even higher to compensate for the supposed reduced profits from having a smaller inventory? Zero extra risk, all the reward up to whatever hypothetical ceiling that even people in a disaster will say, "gently caress that" to.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
It also ignores the cost of inventory. The vendor has to pay taxes on that, and high dollar items like the oft mentioned generators or snowblowers take up a lot of space in a back room. You also have an opportunity cost there of space that can be used by inventory that will sell for sure given normal demand conditions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
I think he's saying that maybe you only really need 1 pack of batteries, but you're going to buy 10 instead to be safe. But if batteries were a lot more expensive you might stop and think "How many batteries do I really need?" Rationing does that in theory, but then that could just create a black market of batteries. Another one of his common themes is that yeah, specifically legislating something (like, rationing in this case) could have the expected benefit, but only if it's followed 100%, and it never is, so you just distort the market in a different way. For all the imperfections of the free market, it's still the best way to allocate resources (and I say this as a far left liberal). E: WoodrowSkillson posted:It also ignores the cost of inventory. The vendor has to pay taxes on that, and high dollar items like the oft mentioned generators or snowblowers take up a lot of space in a back room. You also have an opportunity cost there of space that can be used by inventory that will sell for sure given normal demand conditions. I'm not sure how this argument is anything other than trying to legislate what products stores do or do not carry. Why do we care what someone decides to stock or not stock? FISHMANPET fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Nov 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
That Yglesias article is terrible. He didn't even try to make an argument based on any sort of evidence there. Its just a list of bald assertions premised on the idea that the market is a perfectly efficient machine for allocating goods that can only dysfunction on those sad occasions when government meddlers intervene. The Case for Price Gouging by Matthew Yglesias posted:Even in these polarized times, there are some things politicians of both parties can agree. Price gouging, for example, is wrong. New York Attorney General Eric Scheiderman, a Democrat, wants you to know it. But this isn’t just for soft-hearted liberals. New Jersey’s notoriously tough conservative governor, Chris Christie, also put out a weekend press release warning that “price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal” and that complaints would be investigated by the attorney general. Specifically, Garden State merchants are barred from raising prices more than 10 percent over their normal level during emergency conditions (New York’s anti-gouging law sets a less precise definition, barring “unconscionably extreme” increases). Before noting the very real and substantial problems with the article, I think its worth highlighting this sentence. You'd think that after calling something "hideously misguided" Yglias would proceed to produce strong evidence that there are actual demonstrable and concretely negative effects from this policy. Of course when you get to the end of the article you realize he's done no such thing. He literally just tells us a 'just-so' story about the economy, totally dependent on unsubstantiated a priori assumptions about the efficiency of markets. quote:The basic imperative to allocate goods efficiently doesn’t vanish in a storm or other crisis. If anything, it becomes more important. And price controls in an emergency have the same results as they do any other time: They lead to shortages and overconsumption. Letting merchants raise prices if they think customers will be willing to pay more isn’t a concession to greed. Rather, it creates much-needed incentives for people to think harder about what they really need and appropriately rewards vendors who manage their inventories well. Price controls create an incentive for poor people to stop being so poor I guess. Truly a "much-needed" incentive in modern America. Notice that "efficient" as Yglesias understands it is literally synonymous with "giving goods to the highest bidder" here. Why is it any more efficient for the person with the highest income to get all the stuff, as opposed to the person who managed to show up first? How is one any less arbitrary than the other? This is a persistent problem with economic analysis. They equate your ability to pay with how much you need something. That isn't an exaggeration. That's literally how neoclassical economic analysis works. quote:Consider the case of poor Thakur Gas of Branchville, N.J., which was hit with a $50,000 fine in late September for price gouging charges arising out of Tropical Storm Irene. Christie specifically cited the case over the weekend as a cautionary tale of what awaits New Jersey retailers who try to adjust prices to shifting supply and demand conditions. Thakur’s crime, according to court papers, was raising the prices 17 percent when the storm hit, causing the store’s gross margins to spike. Rather than making an argument he's just begging the question here. Given that in the exact same story he also describes the store he went to still being open despite the price controls, I really don't see why we should accept his seemingly baseless concern that store owners won't sell gasoline unless they're allowed to raise prices. Not only is he not substantiating this argument, the fact he himself had no trouble finding a store that was open directly undermines what he's arguing. quote:Indeed, many of the problems associated with weather emergencies are precisely caused by the fact that we can’t count on shops to “gouge” their customers. I live in a neighborhood with buried power lines in a building that contains a supermarket on the ground floor. But I nonetheless found myself stuck in line Sunday evening at the Safeway stockpiling emergency supplies just in case something went badly wrong and knocked power out throughout the city. The issue wasn’t that I wouldn’t be able to get to the store in a worst-case scenario, as that I was afraid other people would already have bought up all the stuff. And indeed, by the time I made it, the shelves had been largely denuded of essentials such as bottled water, canned soup, batteries, and Diet Coke. Greater flexibility to raise prices would not only tend to curb overconsumption directly by encouraging people to buy less, it would inspire confidence that shortages wouldn’t arise, reducing the tendency toward panicky preemptive hoarding. So basically Yglesias seems to be pissed off that goods are being rationed according to time (something that everyone has roughly the same amount of. Rich or poor, you still only get 24 hours in the day. Its true that a wealthy person can purchase labour saving services, but compared to the far greater inequality in incomes, this is trivial). He has the exact same amount of time as the rest of the people in his neighbourhood, however he certainly has way more money. And here he is innocently suggesting that gee, wouldn't it be great if we could allocate these resources based on something I have in abundance rather than something I share equally with everyone else? quote:Last but by no means least, more price gouging would greatly improve inventory management. There is a large class of goods—flashlights, snow shovels, sand bags—for which demand is highly irregular. Maintaining large inventories of these items is, on most days, a costly misuse of storage space. If retailers can earn windfall profits when demand for them spikes, that creates a situation in which it makes financial sense to keep them on hand. Trying to curtail price gouging does the reverse. And now we go from political hackery into outright stupidity. Does anyone here actually think that stores are going to substantially increase their inventory just because they have the theoretical opportunity to price gouge during the occasional emergency? Is Yglesias completely ignorant of the margins that retail businesses operate on? Does he even believe this or does he just disrespect his readers so much he thinks they'll accept anything he bothers to poo poo onto paper? quote:None of which is to say that people should be greedy all the time. Disasters really are times when people pull together and we see large and small acts of kindness that rightly inspire us. But consider that declining to raise prices in the face of spiking demand and inelastic supply is a very odd form of charity:[u] It doesn’t create any new resources, just allocates them arbitrarily to whoever shows up first.[u] If you feel bad about the idea of earning windfall profits off the misfortunes of others, then donate the money to charity. If that seems too impersonal, give your employees a bonus for showing up under difficult circumstances. But storm or no storm, the best practice is to try to set prices that balance supply with demand. State governments shouldn’t be trying to stop you.  Yes, if only we could switch away from arbitrarily rewarding people for having time on their hands and instead reward our brilliant and heroic rich people, who enjoy their wealth for totally non-arbitrary reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:For all the imperfections of the free market, it's still the best way to allocate resources (and I say this as a far left liberal). The total amount of money you have available to spend is in no way related to your want or need and thus any allocation is horrifically distorted by this artificial limitation as well as being massively unequal and unfair. 'Best' is a weaselword for you to escape having to make any sort of solid position on anything, even about poverty. Edit: Ah ok someone put a little more effort into explaining it. Great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I think he's saying that maybe you only really need 1 pack of batteries, but you're going to buy 10 instead to be safe. But if batteries were a lot more expensive you might stop and think "How many batteries do I really need?" Rationing does that in theory, but then that could just create a black market of batteries. What do you even think a "free market" is, in this context? quote:I'm not sure how this argument is anything other than trying to legislate what products stores do or do not carry. Why do we care what someone decides to stock or not stock? Well, prior to the institution of government regulation it was extremely common for food - especially food sold to low income families - to be full of literally poisonous adulterants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
By no means is capitalism perfect, but I'm not sure what else to do here, practically. Putting a price ceiling is just going to create a black market and have people flaunt the law anyway. Should we have some kind of government rationing program in place to allocate these scarce resources? Something else? If the free market is good enough 51 weeks of the year at allocating resources, why isn't it good for a week in a disaster as well? I don't think having more money leaves you any more entitled to emergency supplies, but I just don't know other way there is to do it. Modifying the words of Winston Churchill, "It has been said that [strike]democracy[/strike] capitalism is the worst form of [strike]government[/strike] resource allocation except all the others that have been tried. Sir Winston Churchill British politician
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:What do you even think a "free market" is, in this context?[quote] No no no holy poo poo no. WoodrowSkillson talked about reasons why a store might or might not stock snow blowers, implying that we should make it illegal to price gouge because then a store might (might) stock a ton of snow blowers that would take up space that could be used for other goods the store might sell, which to me sounds like legislating inventory levels. If a store wants to open in Florida selling nothing but snow blowers at $10,000 a pop, I have no problem with that. If that store wants to sell lovely snow blowers that will explode and hurt people, I have a problem with that. Dictating the quality and safety of goods sold is different from dictating what can be sold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:For all the imperfections of the free market, it's still the best way to allocate resources (and I say this as a far left liberal). You are not far left. For a start, the free market doesn't exist. Markets may exist (though many prices and quantities are set by administrators in large corporations), but a free market certainly doesn't. People only see a 'free market' when they choose to ignore convenient laws and regulations that keep the market together. Examples: immigration, limited liability, consumer protection, anti-child labour/slavery laws. Fishmanpet, take this in the least "haha I'm so much more advanced than you" way, but you remind me of me before I really started engaging with some far left arguments. Up until then you feel obliged to complement markets due to the swathes of right wing propaganda you encounter daily. But ultimately there's a lot more to it than 'worst system except all others that have been tried.' At this point I've come to the conclusion that markets are mostly 'good' at providing things that we don't really need. Unlearning fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Nov 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:By no means is capitalism perfect, but I'm not sure what else to do here, practically. The answer is pretty obvious: just freeze prices during a disaster. Quoting someone who ran a command economy that literally rationed goods and imposed criminal penalties for violating these rations doesn't really shore up your argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:By no means is capitalism perfect, but I'm not sure what else to do here, practically. We let the retailers jack up prices by 10% legally, and then they put signs up saying "two packs of batteries per customer" or something like that. Works perfectly fine?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Actually, in a disaster situation it is often a good idea to institute some kind of rationing, and this is generally done in - for example - times of general military mobilisation. Incidents where disasters have occurred and the authorities decided to take your approach of "The market is good enough" have had such illustrious successes as the Irish potato famine and the Bengal famine. Laissez-faire is a terrible policy at the best of times, and an actively sociopathic one at the worst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:By no means is capitalism perfect, but I'm not sure what else to do here, practically. I was being serious. What do you think a "free market" is? Capitalism just means that most productive capacity is held in private hands and that economic relationships are primarily determined by contracts. "Capitalism" and "free market" are not synonyms, and talking about "capitalism" being the "best system" is meaningless given that dozens of different economic systems could all be called "capitalist". Price setting is completely consistent with a capitalist economy, and indeed the current so called "free market" economy of the United States is filled with arbitrarily set prices. Talking in vague platitudes about "capitalism" doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we should allow price gouging. In fact trying to reduce complex and technical issues into simplistic moral fairy tales about the magic of free markets is one of the reasons pundits like Yglesias don't deserve to be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Putting a price ceiling is just going to create a black market and have people flaunt the law anyway. Should we have some kind of government rationing program in place to allocate these scarce resources? Something else? Money is not some automatic and impartial device which moves where it's needed and automatically arrives at the socially optimal outcome. Money is spent when people consciously spend it on options which other people have consciously created for sale for their own gratification, limited only by the amount of money that they have which is initially granted to them by social mechanisms consciously and unconsciously devised by people including wage labour and private property. Considering the amount of thought that already goes into having a cash-based economy and how widely it misses the mark when it comes to social goals, shouldn't we try and focus peoples attention directly onto needs rather than keep them chasing money as a proxy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:No no no holy poo poo no. WoodrowSkillson talked about reasons why a store might or might not stock snow blowers, implying that we should make it illegal to price gouge because then a store might (might) stock a ton of snow blowers that would take up space that could be used for other goods the store might sell, which to me sounds like legislating inventory levels. If a store wants to open in Florida selling nothing but snow blowers at $10,000 a pop, I have no problem with that. If that store wants to sell lovely snow blowers that will explode and hurt people, I have a problem with that. Dictating the quality and safety of goods sold is different from dictating what can be sold. No, the point is one of the argued benefits of gouging is that stores will increase the availability of crisis items. I'm saying they won't since its not profitable long term to let 4 snowblowers sit in the back as inventory when you do not need too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
What states don't have anti-gouging laws, and are the merchants there actually stocking way more of supplies than they need to in case of major disasters?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
The price gouging law only applies in emergency situations, right? That sounds entirely reasonable. The reason we think poor people should get their water and batteries is because they might need them to survive. Is that really such an unbearable restriction on the beloved free market, that one week of the year you can't gently caress people over so bad they might actually die?WoodrowSkillson posted:No, the point is one of the argued benefits of gouging is that stores will increase the availability of crisis items. I'm saying they won't since its not profitable long term to let 4 snowblowers sit in the back as inventory when you do not need too. Even more importantly, the only reason it would be a good thing to increase the availablility of crisis items is if there is a crisis going on while they're in stock. Price gouging would (theoretically) increase their supply after the crisis is over, when they don't do anyone any good. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Nov 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The price gouging law only applies in emergency situations, right? That sounds entirely reasonable. The reason we think poor people should get their water and batteries is because they might need them to survive. Is that really such an unbearable restriction on the beloved free market, that one week of the year you can't gently caress people over so bad they might actually die? I think it's technically in place year round, but there's rarely an occasion where prices would ever suddenly rise more than 10% in a few days otherwise. Pretty much only an approaching/currently happening disaster would get stores to do it in the first place. Similarly, there's a law in place in NJ and some other states that says you can only raise the price of gas at a given station once each day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, there's a lot of (wrong) words about how I hate poor people. I'd like to thank Cahal for at least keeping an open mind and not immediatly assuming that I'm a shithead. First, I think every poster here has put more effort into their response to this piece than Matt did writing it. The specific problem he is talking about is people over buying supplies, causing shortages. Raising prices would prevent people from over buying, but it will probably price some people out of the market. Another option (which he doesn't discuss) is rationing. But in that case people who had a legitimate need for extra supplies would be prevented from getting what they need, and be forced to turn to a black market. Now in this case the socially optimal outcome is everybody has what they need to weather the storm, and I'm not sure which of those two options is the best. Allowing merchants to charge whatever they want at least has the benefit of being 100% enforceable, while requiring rationing is not. However, I don't think leaving prices flat and doing nothing else gets anywhere near to an optimal outcome for anybody. I will also say that in general, I think the concepts of supply and demand do a better job of allocating resources than some kind of command economy. In normal cases, if the demand for batteries goes up, we can order more batteries and the factories can make more batteries. In this case the supply is almost completely inelastic, and the demand is mostly inelastic, we end up with a problem. I also don't know how much of a widespread problem price gouging is in these kinds of situations, or how many people are getting convicted vs committing it, and how much money is being fined in relation to the amount of money made by gouging. I also tend to assume that human beings are terrible people and will do whatever they can to satisfy their own needs first without considering those of others, but maybe there's a bit more humanity in situations like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Holy poo poo, there's a lot of (wrong) words about how I hate poor people. I'd like to thank Cahal for at least keeping an open mind and not immediatly assuming that I'm a shithead. So what the hell is the point? In both cases there are people who don't get all the stuff that they want, but in the free market case those people are conveniently all people who can't afford the prices. You're saying that poor people being priced out of the market is inherently better than a mixture of poor and rich people being excluded at random. I don't really see how rationing would be any different than anti-price gouging laws, except the price would be locked down even more. FISHMANPET posted:Now in this case the socially optimal outcome is everybody has what they need to weather the storm, and I'm not sure which of those two options is the best. Allowing merchants to charge whatever they want at least has the benefit of being 100% enforceable, while requiring rationing is not. However, I don't think leaving prices flat and doing nothing else gets anywhere near to an optimal outcome for anybody. Making indiscriminate murder legal would also be 100% enforceable, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. That's really not much of an argument. FISHMANPET posted:I will also say that in general, I think the concepts of supply and demand do a better job of allocating resources than some kind of command economy. In normal cases, if the demand for batteries goes up, we can order more batteries and the factories can make more batteries. In this case the supply is almost completely inelastic, and the demand is mostly inelastic, we end up with a problem. I understand the leeriness of command economies, but this really isn't a case where the inefficiency breaks the deal. I also don't have any kind of data on whether there are problems with these laws, but I suspect not, so take that for what it's worth I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Again, I'm not seeing what good thing the people get out of "go hog wild and raise prices to whatever ya want" instead of the current system of "stores can charge 10% more and they usually put up a 'X items per person only' sign".
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
For the battery scenario (and similar situations), I'd have to say rationing makes the most sense. A lot of the countries used it in World War II, and while it did create problems with black markets, overall it did a pretty good job of keeping people supplied at a time when resources were short. Also, since I haven't seen the subject come up, does D&D have any sort of consensus on how harmful violent media is, and how much it needs to be regulated? The experiments I've read about this seem to conflict with each other pretty heavily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
If you assume that people will be terrible if it benefits them, then (legally) forbidding large price increase while doing nothing about rationing doesn't really help anybody (assuming people have no humanity and don't implement rationing on their own). But if stores are implementing purchase limits on their own then that's good, and preferable. But from a pure supply/demand standpoint, there's no reason to voluntarily keep prices low or ration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
In Fishmanpet's defence, banning and price controls do generally create black markets. However, what I think he's not seeing is that this is due to society still being inside the logic of capitalism ,rather than some sort of inviolable law of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 11:22
|
|
|
Cahal posted:At this point I've come to the conclusion that markets are mostly 'good' at providing things that we don't really need. Just an aside, and not trying to be snide, but how do things like these forums fit into your scheme? I think they're a good thing, I was glad to pay the  to get on here, and I would have no faith whatsoever in the Central Cultural Commissar spontaneously providing well-moderated comedy forums as a service to the workers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 12:25
|
|
|
Cahal posted:In Fishmanpet's defence, banning and price controls do generally create black markets. Right, but in this specific instance, who gives a gently caress? It's a god drat disaster! It's something that only happens rarely and (theoretically) affects supply for a short period of time. We're not talking about Cuba or the Soviet Union where toliet paper and milk are in short supply for months at a time. Fishmanpet's slavish devotion to the "Free Market, No Matter What" is what has people going "wtf" especially in the context of him saying, "I'm a far left liberal (contradictory in my eyes)" because that isn't a very far left position to take at all. FISHMANPET, when your interests are serving supply/demand over the interests of literal human beings, you probably should re-evaluate your priorities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
rscott posted:Right, but in this specific instance, who gives a gently caress? It's a god drat disaster! It's something that only happens rarely and (theoretically) affects supply for a short period of time. We're not talking about Cuba or the Soviet Union where toliet paper and milk are in short supply for months at a time. Fishmanpet's slavish devotion to the "Free Market, No Matter What" is what has people going "wtf" especially in the context of him saying, "I'm a far left liberal (contradictory in my eyes)" because that isn't a very far left position to take at all. Oh absolutely, in a disaster or war it's a different kettle of fish. Also, arguing black markets will completely neutralize the controls or make the problem worse is a big step from saying they will just appear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
rscott posted:The line of reasoning that says "a businessman will keep more of general disaster related items on hand if he's allowed to gouge on pricing during disasters" seems rather specious to me. Yeah, that was a weak argument. The better argument has always been, if he can up prices during a disaster he'll be able to bring in more goods, just before and just after said disaster. If he sells all his product for x amount, then he can only bring in the same amount of product he had before; if he sells it for 2x, then he can bring in twice as much, and having 20 batteries makes everyone in the disaster area better off than only having 10 batteries, right? This is of course assuming he puts it back into inventory rather than pocketing it like a 1920s movie villain, but one assumes a store is in the business of making more money rather than making a ton and then running away. Install Gentoo posted:We let the retailers jack up prices by 10% legally, and then they put signs up saying "two packs of batteries per customer" or something like that. Works perfectly fine? So the best method is a middle ground between price increases and rationing, rather than going whole hog into either? But what if one person wants to ration to 1 pack per customer and charge less, but the other wants to experiment and go 2 packs but charge more, etc etc? Give a little room for the market to figure out what the best method is? As an aside, having two people with a cat avatar arguing against each other is getting confusing.  Edit: There's also a major issue that isn't being presented here: Apart from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, we have never really seen a society-crushing disaster in this country, not anytime recently at least. Yes, price controls and rationing create black markets... for about three days. Then the lights will come back on, the water will be drained, and New Yorkers will start to go back to normal. So concern for a black market shouldn't be a major thing; apart from needing water and medicine, people will be pretty much okay, and those are something you can get from the national guard and red cross rather than having to go to your local Duane Reade. Golbez fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Nov 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Also, stores are already free to raise their prices however much they want outside of an approaching disaster. So if someone wants to sell batteries for $20 during a disaster, they can just keep the $20 battery price on the shelf at all times. Or keep a price on the shelf that can be legally raised to $20 under the price gouging laws.Golbez posted:So the best method is a middle ground between price increases and rationing, rather than going whole hog into either? But what if one person wants to ration to 1 pack per customer and charge less, but the other wants to experiment and go 2 packs but charge more, etc etc? Give a little room for the market to figure out what the best method is? The middle ground is how it already works in states with anti-gouging laws, and frankly it works well. Store owners are allowed to raise prices a little, and they can choose whether or not they'll ration stuff. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Nov 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
rscott posted:FISHMANPET, when your interests are serving supply/demand over the interests of literal human beings, you probably should re-evaluate your priorities. God damnit stop putting these words in my mouth. First, this is all an academic exercise, and unless there's a huge problem with profiteering and people not getting needed supplies, there's no reason to change anything. There will always be people who break the law, and there will always be people who get away with it, and there will usually be people for, whatever reason, can't get what they need. Second, if you assume that human beings are terrible monsters and will only look out for themselves (as I often do), then there's no motive to ensure optimal distribution, only a motive to maximize personal gain (by raising prices as high as "the market" can stand). Now if there's any human compassion, a store owner can say "Hey, I'm gonna ration these supplies on my own, because that's the best thing to do for humanity." He has no market motivation to do that. Likewise, if there was a law about rationing, could it even be enforced during the disaster, and not merely punished after the fact? But again, it seems like there is some human compassion in play here, and the big arm of the government doesn't need to get involved any more than it is already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
Can anyone comment on what's up with Benghazi? Most sites and folks on FB that tend to post the most information about it are largely suspect. This past week has gone from "Obama personally denied backup" to "Obama watched them die on his 1984 telescreen". Browsed about today and now it's "Well the Obama admin actually did have CIA help on the ground but didn't scramble the elite anti terrorism group who would have known exactly what to do in the hour and a half of battle". I don't doubt that they are getting their talking points from Breitbart or AoS, but I'd like some information to the contrary if anyone has it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
A bit late, but...Mo_Steel posted:A lot of great information about SNAP and TANF 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
So a family friend from my synagogue who is fairly conservative just got pretty ornery about me posting a video of Romney candidly discussing his Mormonism (excerpted from that one radio interview) This is what he has said so far: quote:I Don't understand what this video is trying to express, theres no logical attack on Mitt Romney. Is the video there just to attack him cause he's explaining Mormonism and what the faith believes and what he disagrees with regarding abortion? And one other question, does anyone know the real Barack Obama? I said the following: quote:It's Mitt Romney speaking candidly about his personal faith. There's nothing wrong with that. It's interesting to see him off the stump and out of debates and more candidly in a one on one setting, as it is for any national politician. I think it's a pretty fair criticism of the man, nothing to do with Romney's character or personal life. However, he came back with these two comments: quote:I believe the Romney/Ryan view on abortion is pro life unless there is a case with rape or perhaps deciding between the mothers life and the unborn babies life. Regarding "the real Obama" I guarantee you a sizable majority of Obama supporters don't know that Obama's mentor growing up Frank Marshall Davis, was a known communist and part of a communist party, or that his close professor at Harvard is a socialist, and also was in acquaintance with a different professor who is a known anti-semetic. Or his friend growing up in Chicago who attempted to bomb the Pentagon, and succeeded in blowing up a police station. Or his insane reverend for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, a known anti semite and a known hater of America as a whole. There is a recording of Obama's meeting with Wright during the 2008 elections. Obama as you know went to try and stop him. During their encounter, Obama clearly says in the recording "Why do you have to speak the truth"? I'm sure the average American voter has no idea of any of these things, which can lead people to think of it as a fishy past quote:Believe me those claims are proven. And the question was do people know the real Obama? I feel people have no idea of his past and who he has been acquaintance with. These figures obviously have an impact on his life. You're not just friends with somebody, or have your children baptized by an insane individual you have been following for 20 years, there has to be some common ground there, that is undeniable. Truthfully, before I saw the movie Obama: 2016, I did not know half the things of his past. And I wouldn't think all of these things in the film are made up. There is a recording of Obama saying to Wright, why do you have to tell the truth. But the real question is, if Obama is reelected, will America see the true Obama? I'm not saying if he is reelected then he is going to bring his acclaimed socialist colors out, but there is definitely a fishy past, and it is undeniable based on the people he has been hanging around with that he shares common feelings with them. It has to be there. I'm linking him to factchecks of that movie, and there's quite a few around, but he seems to really believe in guilt by association. I'm quite tempted to show him the dangers of that line of thinking by pointing out his fallacy by showing how much could be gleaned about Mitt Romney by judging him by his associates, but I think that's a rather low-down tactic and I'd rather do this on an issue-based way. That being said, this silly movie has emboldened a lot of conservatives to be extra dense about Obama's past and to deliberately obfuscate it to make it seem like the dude who's been president for the past 4 years is a total unknown. Any good ideas on how to combat this? I'm obviously going to point how lovely Dinesh D'Souza is, but any other protips would be immensely appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
I've seen Mitt Romney hanging around with a Muslim Communist a lot. They even appeared together on national television multiple times, with Mitt Romney saying he agrees with him on a wide variety of issues. I think the real question is, why is Mitt Romney hiding his socialist agenda after blatantly palling around with Barry Soetoro all this time? I don't really know any good way of fighting that other than to point out how stupidly absurd guilt by association is. Over and over and over again, until it's drilled so far into the discussion that it cannot be ignored that guilt by association is a fallacy and in no way discredits an individual's policies. We've had a President Obama for 4 years now. He's not a secret communist terror muslim, he's a center right Democrat. Tibeerius posted:A bit late, but... Glad I was able to help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
There are many billboards here in Cedar Rapids bought by the "Linn [County] Conservative Union", blaming Obama for gas going up 2 dollars during his term (despite the fact that it was so low when he took office because that little economic collapse thing) and one billboard calling him a "socialist." My question is, are they actually this stupid, or do they simply think the voters are stupid? The former gives me comfort; the latter gives me hate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Golbez posted:There are many billboards here in Cedar Rapids bought by the "Linn [County] Conservative Union", blaming Obama for gas going up 2 dollars during his term (despite the fact that it was so low when he took office because that little economic collapse thing) and one billboard calling him a "socialist." "Socialist" in this country has about as much meaningand gets pass around as much as jimminy jillickers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
This is a very general question, but can anyone give me a primer on what Gary Johnson's like, specifically his economic policies?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
Cobweb Heart posted:This is a very general question, but can anyone give me a primer on what Gary Johnson's like, specifically his economic policies? He's a libertarian who believes taxes have to made lower, and also supports the FairTax aka the gently caress the poor tax. "a libertarian platform emphasizing the United States public debt and a balanced budget through a 43% reduction of all federal government spending, protection of civil liberties, an immediate end to the War in Afghanistan and his advocacy of the FairTax."
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Having done some reading on the FairTax, would it be accurate to say that it relies on tax evasion not existing to function and reduces taxes for the very wealthy? Edit: I guess libertarians wouldn't see the second part as being bad. Cobweb Heart fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Nov 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Cobweb Heart posted:Having done some reading on the FairTax, would it be accurate to say that it relies on tax evasion not existing and reduces taxes for the very wealthy? Yes and yes! Also they try to trick people, because the tax is actually a tax on the price of the item and the rate... eg when they say a FairTax rate of "23%" then for a $1 item you actually get taxed $1.30! Because they use a weird way to quote percentages, instead of quoting the percentage of tax based on the pre-tax item price. They claim that "prebates" issued to people will make it progressive by giving poor people money upfront to pay for this tax on every single thing you can buy, but since it'd only come once per month it'd gently caress most people who aren't rich over severely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 00:25
|
|